Whose Life Task Is It Anyway?
Social Appraisal and Life Task Pursuit
Sean P. Meegan
Cynthia A. Berg
University of Utah
ABSTRACT The study uses a social contextual framework to examine how
others are represented in individuals’ life task appraisals and how such appraisals
are related to strategies to pursue those life tasks. The extent to which life tasks
nominated by 81 college students (45 females) were appraised as shared with others
and pursued collaboratively was examined through a questionnaire. Participants
listed five life tasks, indicated if each life task was theirs alone, indirectly shared
(others were impacted by their life task pursuit), or directly shared (another person
might also nominate the life task as theirs) with others in their lives, described three
activities used to pursue their life tasks, and coded how others were involved in
Sean P. Meegan and Cynthia A. Berg, Department of Psychology, University of Utah.
The preparation of this manuscript was supported in part by a B. Jack White Award
from the University of Utah, awarded to Sean P. Meegan. An earlier version of this paper
was presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, August
1998, San Francisco, CA.
We gratefully acknowledge the hard work and dedication of Karen Taylor and J’Lene
George throughout the data collection and data entry phases of this project. Our gratitude
is also extended to Eric Cleveland, Frances Deviney, J’Lene George, Don Hartmann,
Amy Leishman, Jacob Lonsdale, Sarah Lucas, Shara Pierson, Courtney Robbins, Carol
Sansone, Avril Thorne, and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and
discussion about this manuscript.
Correspondence can be directed to Sean P. Meegan, who is now at the Department
of Psychology, Western Illinois University, Macomb, IL, 61455, or to Cynthia A. Berg
at the University of Utah, Department of Psychology, 390 South 1530 East, Room 502,
Salt L ake City, U T, 84112-0251. Elec tr onic mail can be sent to
[email protected] or [email protected].
Journal of Personality 69:3, June 2001.
Copyright © 2001 by Blackwell Publishers, 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148,
USA, and 108 Cowley Road, Oxford, OX4 1JF, UK.
364
Meegan & Berg
these activities. Results indicated that the majority of college students’ life tasks
were appraised as involving others, that directly shared appraisals were found more
frequently in the relationship domain, and that directly shared appraisals were
associated with collaborative life task pursuit strategies. In addition, appraising life
tasks as directly shared did not appear to reflect aspects of anxiety or compensation.
A content analysis of the strategies coded as involving other individuals revealed
diverse ways in which others are involved in life task pursuit ranging from active
engagement of others to cognitive strategies where others are implied. The findings
have implications for research on life tasks and other goal structures in that the
structures may involve the social context in adaptive ways.
Whose Life Task Is It Anyway?
Social Appraisal and Life Task Pursuit
Life tasks represent a broad class of goals with which individuals guide,
give meaning to, and organize their everyday activities (Cantor &
Kihlstrom, 1987; Cantor, Norem, Niedenthal, Langston, & Brower,
1987; Zirkel & Cantor, 1990). Life tasks provide motivational and
self-definitional information for individuals navigating their everyday
lives (see also Cross & Markus, 1991; Emmons, 1986; Little, 1983 for
similar perspectives on possible selves, personal strivings, and personal
projects, respectively). Research has shown that the motivational and
definitional features of life tasks and related constructs have important
consequences for both psychological and physical well-being (Emmons,
1991, 1992; Klinger, 1975; Palys & Little, 1983), especially during life
transitions (Cantor et al., 1987; Zirkel & Cantor, 1990; Zirkel, 1992). In
addition, individuals’ personal construal of their own life tasks appears
to hold important consequences for variability in perceived difficulty of
the life tasks and strategies for their pursuit (Cantor & Kihlstrom, 1987;
Cantor et al., 1987; Norem & Cantor, 1986; Zirkel & Cantor, 1990).
Most research on life tasks and related constructs focuses on how
persons individually select and appraise their own life tasks from a broad
array of possibilities. However, many life tasks nominated by college
students (Zirkel & Cantor, 1990) involve other individuals at least implicitly in their appraisal and pursuit, and thus could be considered highly
interdependent in nature (e.g., finding a romantic partner, increasing
intimacy within a relationship, establishing or maintaining friendships).
In addition, many college students find themselves operating within a
social context in which life tasks in a variety of domains (e.g., achievement, intimacy) are salient and negotiated within interpersonal relationships.
Social Life Task Appraisals
365
For example, in several studies, Cantor and colleagues (Cantor, Acker,
& Cook-Flanagan, 1992; Cantor & Malley, 1991; Harlow & Cantor,
1994, 1995) have reported that sorority members made strategic efforts
to obtain social support for academic concerns or selected into interpersonal situations that would support their strivings for intimacy. However,
how others were involved and what they did in those interpersonal
settings remain unexamined.
The use of others to pursue life tasks may be an indication that some
life tasks are more than the sole province of the individual. Individuals
may appraise some life tasks as shared with others. That is, if the
strategies individuals employ to pursue life tasks involve others in
substantial ways, then others may be integrated into life task appraisals
as well. Thus, the goal of the present research is to extend work by Cantor
et al. (1992) and Harlow and Cantor (1994, 1995) by providing a
framework for understanding how others may be represented in individuals’ life task appraisals and how such appraisals are related to strategies
to pursue those life tasks, strategies that may involve others in ways that
extend beyond social support.
The framework for the study draws from recent research and theory
within the stress and coping and everyday problem-solving literatures
that have emphasized how stressors, everyday problems, and the strategies used to deal with them often include other individuals in substantial
ways (e.g., Aldwin, Sutton, Chiara, & Spiro, 1996; Berg, Meegan, &
Deviney, 1998; Berg, Strough, Calderone, Sansone, & Weir, 1998;
Blanchard-Fields, Jahnke, & Camp, 1995; Compas & Wagner, 1991;
Coyne & Delongis, 1986; Gottlieb & Wagner, 1991; Wethington &
Kessler, 1991). This work is relevant to the study of life tasks, as many
everyday problems are ones that individuals face as they are trying to
accomplish their life tasks (Berg et al., 1998).
The Social-Contextual Model of Everyday Problem Solving (Berg,
Meegan, & Deviney, 1998) highlights the importance of considering how
a problem, life task, or stressor may be appraised by individual members
of a social unit and how those appraisals may be related to strategy use.
In general, the model posits that individual members of a social unit (e.g.,
dyad, family) may be configured in three basic appraisals. In the present
study, we examine individuals’ perceptions of how life tasks might be
shared with relationship partners. The solitary individual appraisal represents an individual’s appraisal of a life task as only his or her own and
is similar to the individualistic perspective within previous research on
366
Meegan & Berg
college students’ life tasks (e.g., Cantor et al., 1987; Norem & Cantor,
1986; Zirkel & Cantor, 1990). The indirectly shared appraisal represents
an individual’s appraisal of a life task as primarily his or her own, but
also impacting others in his or her life. For example, an individual may
recognize that his or her pursuit of a life task may create changes within
the dynamics of a relationship due to reduced time for interaction,
increased involvement in other activities, or changes within the interaction patterns of the relationship (Compas & Wagner, 1991; Larson &
Almeida, 1999). The directly shared appraisal represents an individual’s
appraisal of a life task as shared with another important person in his or
her life, such that the other person might likely nominate this life task as
his or her own. The life task is one that may have emerged within an
important relationship and is a life task that could be considered the
province of a social unit. A life task appraised as directly shared is viewed
by an individual as one that is not his or hers alone but is better
characterized as a task of the dyad. Although dyads may directly share
their appraisals, such appraisals may not be precisely the same, as one
member of the dyad may emphasize different elements of the life task
than the other.
The model predicts that appraisal processes will be influenced both by
features of the context as well as features of the individual that are salient
at a particular point in time. Berg et al. (1998) used domain of everyday
problems as a marker for context and found that interpersonally oriented
domains (e.g., family, friends) were associated with a higher frequency
of problem appraisals containing interpersonally focused goals. Thus,
interpersonal contexts may afford shared appraisals and shape activities
used to pursue life tasks. Regarding individual characteristics, Strough,
Berg, and Sansone (1996) reported that, compared to males, females
more frequently described everyday problems where relationships were
central and reported goals for problem solution that were more frequently
focused on others. Thus, similar gender differences in the domains of life
tasks reported as well as in whether the life tasks are appraised as shared
with others were explored. As gender differences are frequently described as differences in the extent to which individuals are sensitive and
responsive to their interpersonal relationships (e.g., Gilligan, 1982), we
also explored whether individual differences in interpersonal orientation
(e.g., Swap & Rubin, 1983) may be related to the types of life tasks
reported and how life tasks are appraised.
Social Life Task Appraisals
367
The model also distinguishes among three broad types of strategies
related to the appraisal configurations described above. These strategies
are conceptually distinct from appraisals, in that strategies reflect efforts
to pursue life tasks, whereas appraisals reflect current conceptualizations
of life tasks. Individual strategies are those strategies that an individual
enacts on his or her own and are most similar to previously investigated
coping responses across the life span (e.g., optimism and defensive
pessimism, Norem & Cantor, 1986; emotion-focused and problemfocused strategies, Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). In contrast, collaborative
strategies include strategies in which others are actively and directly
involved in sharing responsibility for problem-solving or life task pursuit
activities (e.g., shared physical or cognitive activities, see Rogoff, 1998;
Staudinger, 1996 for reviews). A middle level of social involvement
includes supportive strategies that represent peripheral and indirect involvement of others (others accommodate to one’s needs or provide instrumental
or informational support) and are most often investigated under the
construct of social support (Coyne, Ellard, & Smith, 1990; Cutrona &
Russell, 1990; Pierce, Sarason, Sarason, Joseph, & Henderson, 1996).
These strategies are proposed to be associated with different appraisal
configurations representing an adaptive fit with life task appraisals.
Specifically, the model suggests that life tasks appraised as directly
shared within a social unit would be pursued with more collaborative
strategies that directly and actively involve members of the social unit
(Berg, Meegan, & Deviney, 1998). Conversely, life tasks appraised as
individual in nature would be pursued with greater proportions of individual strategies.
The idea of interdependence in life tasks is present to some extent in the
literature, as previous research has highlighted the importance of interpersonal and intimacy life tasks (Cantor et al., 1992; Cantor & Malley, 1991).
However, whether intimacy life tasks were considered to be interdependent
by the participants themselves remains unclear. Similarly, academic life
tasks that appear quite individual at face value may not be considered
uniformly independent by participants. In this study, we adopt the individual
as the unit of analysis in our first step toward understanding the extent to
which others are represented in life task appraisals and strategies. We employ
a methodology in which we directly ask participants about the ways in which
others are included in life task appraisals and strategies.
In the present study we examined the extent and nature of others’
involvement in life task appraisals and strategies. First, we used a
368
Meegan & Berg
methodology based on Cantor and colleagues (Cantor et al., 1987; Zirkel
& Cantor, 1990) to explore the extent to which college students appraised
their life tasks as directly or indirectly shared with others and reported
collaborative life task pursuit strategies. We expected that the life tasks
nominated by students would be frequently appraised as directly and
indirectly shared and pursued collaboratively. Second, contextual and
individual parameters of life task appraisal and pursuit were explored to
address whether interpersonal domains and females and other individuals
high in interpersonal orientation would be associated more frequently
with directly shared appraisals. Third, we addressed whether directly
shared appraisals reflected difficulty and anxiety in accomplishing the
life task, because some researchers have suggested that the inclusion of
others within goal representation and problem-solving activities represents compensatory efforts for lack of ability (e.g., Heckhausen &
Schulz, 1995). Fourth, we examined the relation between life task appraisals and pursuit strategies, expecting that life tasks appraised as
directly shared would be related to greater reports of collaborative
strategies. Finally, to explore in more depth the ways that others are
involved in life-task pursuit and how domains may structure the variety
and content of these activities, we conducted a content analysis on the
activities participants reported as involving others at some level.
METHOD
Participants
Eighty-one college students (45 females) averaging 21 years of age (SD = 2.96,
range 18–38) participated in the study and received extra credit in their introductory psychology course. The sample was representative of the local student
body and general population in the state in that it was predominantly Caucasian
(83%; African American, 3%; Asian American, 7%; Other 7%) and of the
Mormon religion (58%; Catholic, 10%; Protestant 8%; Other, 5%; None, 20%).1
Procedure
Participants completed the Life Task Questionnaire (adapted from Cantor et al.,
1987, 1991) and the Interpersonal Orientation (IO) Scale (Swap & Rubin, 1983).
1. None of the analyses reported herein differed by either of these background variables.
Social Life Task Appraisals
369
The Life Task Questionnaire required students to list five life tasks. Life tasks
were elicited with the following instructions based on Cantor et al. (1987):
One way to think about goals is to think about “current life tasks.” For
example, imagine a retired person. The following three life tasks may emerge
for the individual as they approach this difficult time: (1) being productive
without a job; (2) shaping a satisfying role with grown children and their
families; and (3) enjoying leisure time and activities. These specific tasks
constitute important goals since the individual’s energies will be directed
towards solving them.
Similarly, there are countless life tasks that make up the college student
experience. Please list below 5 of the current life tasks that come to mind for
you as you think about this. Please put them in order of importance. Your list
can include tasks ranging from the mundane to the monumental, as well as
those you will seek out and those you will stumble into. Please list your life
tasks in order of importance.
Participants then completed a series of questions for each life task. The first
life task was rated on dimensions of control (I feel I am in control of this life
task.), difficulty (This is a difficult life task for me.), enjoyment (I enjoy working
on this life task.), and interdependence (My pursuit of this life task depends on
other people.). Participants made agreement judgments about these dimensions
on a 6-point scale, anchored by strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (6).
These dimensions (drawn, in part, from Zirkel & Cantor, 1990) were included
to examine whether directly shared life task appraisals were associated with
aspects of anxiety or difficulty, suggesting that others might be involved to
compensate for weaknesses.
To assess life task appraisals, participants were asked, “Circle one of the terms
below to indicate how this life task is shared with another person.” The
categories included “Only mine” (The life task is yours and yours alone),
“Indirectly shared” (The life task is primarily yours, but others in your life are
impacted by your pursuit of it), or “Directly shared” (The life task is completely
shared with other(s) in your life, such that they would likely indicate that the
life task is shared with you also).
To assess strategic pursuit of life tasks, participants next reported three
activities they had done recently to pursue each life task and were asked to
indicate how others were involved in each activity with the prompt: “For each
of the activities listed above, select one of the categories below which best
characterizes how others were involved and write the corresponding number in
the right-hand column of each of the activities.” The categories and their
descriptions included “Not at all,” “Accommodated” (e.g., adjusted themselves
or activities so you could pursue life task), “Gave advice” (e.g., answered
questions, provided feedback), “Provided support” (e.g., consoled, encouraged,
370
Meegan & Berg
provided needed materials), “Divided labor” (e.g., shared work, each did their
part), “Negotiated” (e.g., discussed, analyzed, debated options), and “Joint
problem solving” (e.g., brainstormed together, solved problem together). Due
to our interest in the three types of strategies derived from the model (Berg,
Meegan, & Deviney, 1998), we collapsed individuals’ life task pursuit activities
into three categories reflective of individual (not at all), supportive (accommodated/gave advice/provided support), and collaborative (divided labor/negotiated/joint problem solving) strategies. Proportions of each category were created
for each life task. The entire series of questions was repeated for the four
remaining life tasks.
Finally, participants completed the Interpersonal Orientation (IO) Scale
(Swap & Rubin, 1983), a 29-item index of the extent to which an individual is
responsive to interpersonal aspects of their relationships with others. Swap and
Rubin suggest that individuals scoring high in the IO Scale are greatly concerned
with all aspects of their interpersonal relationships (e.g., cooperation, power,
exchange, reciprocity). In contrast, low IO individuals are generally unresponsive to interpersonal aspects of their relationships. Items from the measure were
rated on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) and included
statements such as “Other people are the source of my greatest pleasure and
pain”; “It is important for me to work with people with whom I get along well,
even if that means I get less done”; and “When people tell me personal things
about themselves, I find myself feeling close to them” (see Swap & Rubin,
1983). The psychometric properties of the IO Scale are described in detail by
Swap and Rubin, and scores on the IO Scale from the present sample were within
normal ranges (M overall = 104; M males = 101, M females = 106, t (79) = –2.59,
p = .01).
Coding
Domain of life task. After all data had been collected, students’ life tasks were
coded into seven domains derived from previous research on college students’
normative life tasks (e.g., Cantor et al., 1987). These domains included school,
occupation, relationships, goals/decisions for future, finance, health maintenance, leisure, and religion. The first author coded life tasks, and reliability was
established with a trained research assistant on 25% of the data (approximately
100 life tasks). Kappa (Cohen, 1960) exceeded .85, which represents excellent
agreement among coders.
Content coding of life task pursuit strategies. We drew from constant comparative methods of qualitative data analysis (e.g., Glaser & Strauss, 1967) to identify
emerging themes within the set of life task pursuit strategies. We began by
identifying strategies coded as involving others (i.e., supportive or collaborative),
Social Life Task Appraisals
371
and removed information about the life task, appraisal, or participant code for
the strategies. These strategies were transcribed onto cards for ease of sorting
and categorizing. Through an iterative process of reading, rereading, and identifying common themes in the strategies, the authors independently identified
more than 20 common themes. To reduce the themes to a manageable set, we
together identified 12 core categories. We sorted the strategies by focusing on
their content and function, rather than simple semantic similarities. For example,
“talked about marriage with boyfriend” was sorted into a category labeled
“Contacting, talking, or sharing with others,” whereas “talked to academic
advisors” was sorted into a category labeled “Seeking or receiving help.”
RESULTS
We first describe the domains of life tasks nominated by the students
within this sample. Next, we present analyses addressing appraisal of life
tasks; analyses of perceptions of control, difficulty, enjoyment, and
interdependence for life tasks; the extent to which life tasks were pursued
collaboratively; whether appraisals were related to the strategies used to
pursue those life tasks; and descriptive analyses of the content of supportive and collaborative strategies.
Life Task Domains
Examining the domain categories across all life tasks, approximately half
of all the life tasks nominated were in either the school or relationships
domains. The most frequently mentioned life task domain was school
(26%), including tasks such as “finish my degree,” “raise my GPA,” and
“get into graduate school.” The next most frequent domain was relationships (23%), including tasks such as “keep close to my friends,” “get
married,” and “be a good husband and father.” Work and leisure were the
next two most frequently occurring life task domains (14% and 11%,
respectively), followed by health maintenance (5%), financial concerns
(5%), religion (4%), and goals/decisions for the future (3%). Approximately 10% of life tasks could not be coded into one of the domains
above. Some examples of life tasks coded as “other” included “happiness,” “becoming established in my community,” “gaining knowledge of
the world,” and “keeping myself busy and useful through life.”
Because school and relationships accounted for the greatest proportions of life tasks, we collapsed the 9 domain categories to 3 for later
analyses (i.e., school, relationships, other). Proportions of relationship,
372
Meegan & Berg
school, and other life tasks were calculated for each individual and
examined for relations with gender and the IO scale. Females nominated
proportionally more life tasks within the relationships domain than males
(M = .26, SD = .15 and M = .19, SD = .14, respectively, t (79) = –2.31, p
< .05), but no gender differences existed in the proportions of life tasks
in school and other domains. Correlations between individuals’ scores
on the IO Scale and the proportions of life tasks within school (r = .01),
relationships (r = .09) and other (r = –.08) domains were not significant.2
In sum, the life tasks nominated by college students in this study are
consistent with other studies of normative life tasks with specific areas
of focus on school and relationships (e.g., Cantor et al., 1987; Zirkel &
Cantor, 1990).
Life Task Appraisals and Domains
To examine the extent of individual, indirectly shared, and directly shared
life task appraisals, the proportions of each life task appraisal category
were aggregated across life tasks (5 from each of 81 participants).
Participants appraised the majority of their life tasks as directly shared
(36%) or indirectly shared (46%). Participants appraised only 18% of life
tasks as theirs alone.
Next, we assessed the role of life task domain in appraisal. Because
the proportions for each of the appraisal categories summed to 1 for each
participant (i.e., they were ipsative), we conducted analyses using only
the proportions of individual and the proportions of directly shared
appraisals as dependent measures. Further, because individuals selfselected into their own domains of life tasks, we conducted separate
analyses for each domain, including only the subset of participants
reporting life tasks in the specific domain.3 Where appropriate, we
averaged across multiple life tasks in that domain to produce an average
proportion of individual and directly shared appraisals in that domain for
each participant. Because individuals’ life tasks may have crossed multiple domains, the numbers of participants in each domain-specific
analysis sum to more than the total N.
2. No gender differences or relations with interpersonal orientation existed for any other
variables of interest. Further analyses and discussion of gender and interpersonal orientation will not be presented.
3. We are grateful to Donald P. Hartmann for suggesting this analytic strategy.
Social Life Task Appraisals
373
As depicted in Figure 1, when participants reported life tasks in the
relationships domain (n = 64), a significantly greater proportion of life
tasks was appraised as directly shared than as individual, dependent t (63)
= –12.24, p < .001. For participants reporting life tasks in school (n = 78)
and other domains (n = 80), life tasks were appraised as individual and
directly shared with similar proportions (dependent t (77) = 1.07, p > .05
and dependent t (79) = –.86, p > .05, respectively). Within-subject
analyses conducted on the subset of participants who reported life tasks
in all three domains revealed a similar pattern of effects.4
In sum, the majority of individuals’ life tasks were appraised as
involving others. Life task appraisal appeared to be related somewhat to
the domain of the life task, in that life tasks about relationships tended to
appraised as directly shared with others.
Life Task Appraisals and Perceptions
of Control, Difficulty, Enjoyment,
and Interdependence
Our next analyses addressed perceptions of control, difficulty, enjoyment, and interdependence of each of the life tasks. Participants generally
felt in control of their life tasks (M = 4.93, SD = .65), that their life tasks
were moderately difficult (M = 3.75, SD = .92), that they generally
enjoyed working on their life tasks (M = 4.88, SD = .62), and that pursuing
the life tasks depended on others to a fair extent (M = 4.11, SD = .84).
These perceptions were interrelated in fairly predictable ways. Examination of Table 1 reveals that higher ratings of control were related to
lower perceptions of difficulty and higher perceptions of enjoyment. In
addition, higher ratings of difficulty were related to lower perceptions of
enjoyment.
4. To address whether appraisals varied by domain within individuals, we conducted a
repeated-measures ANOVA with two within-subject factors (domain and appraisal type),
examining proportions of individual and directly shared appraisals within each of the
domains for the subset of participants who reported life tasks in all three domain
categories (n = 60). The appraisal by domain interaction term was significant, F (2, 118)
= 50.97, p < .001, indicating that individual and directly shared appraisals varied by
domain within this subset of individuals. The pattern of mean proportions of appraisals
was similar to that in the set of “domain-specific” analyses depicted in Figure 1.
374
Meegan & Berg
Figure 1
Mean proportions of individual and directly shared appraisals
within school, relationships, and other domains.
Table 1
Correlations Among Average Perceptions of Control, Difficulty,
Enjoyment, and Interdependence of Life Tasks
Perceptions
1.
2.
3.
4.
1. Interdependence
2. Control
3. Difficulty
4. Enjoyment
—
–.02
—
.17
–.31**
—
.05
.40***
–.37**
—
n = 81, ** p < .01, *** p < .001, two-tailed
We next examined whether directly shared appraisals were associated
with perceptions of difficulty or anxiety over life tasks. Specifically, we
examined correlations between the proportions of each of the appraisal
categories and average ratings of control, difficulty, enjoyment, and
interdependence across the five life tasks. There were no significant
Social Life Task Appraisals
375
relations between the proportions of individual, indirectly shared, and
directly shared appraisals and the average ratings of control, difficulty,
or enjoyment of tasks (n = 81, r range –.16 to .10, p > .05). Ratings of
interdependence, however, were positively related to the proportion of
directly shared appraisals of tasks (r = .43, p < .001), negatively related
to the proportion of individual appraisals of tasks (r = –.43, p < .001),
and unrelated to the proportion of indirectly shared appraisals of tasks
(r = .00, p > .05). Thus, greater proportions of directly shared appraisals
were associated with higher average ratings of interdependence, whereas
greater proportions of individual appraisals were associated with lower
ratings of interdependence.
In sum, participants consistently rated life tasks as enjoyable and under
their control. In addition, life task appraisals were unrelated to aspects of
difficulty or anxiety over life tasks. Ratings of interdependence provided
converging evidence for our theoretical assertion that directly shared
appraisals reflect greater involvement of others in life tasks.
Life Task Appraisals and Strategies
Next, we examined the proportions of each type of life task pursuit
strategy and how strategies were related to life task appraisals. Within
each life task, proportions of the three strategy types were calculated for
each individual. Across all life tasks, the majority of strategies used to
pursue life tasks involved others in some way. Specifically, 21% and 48%
of strategies were collaborative and supportive (respectively), whereas
approximately 31% of strategies were individual in nature.
We then examined the relation between strategies and appraisals.
Because the proportions for each of the strategies summed to 1 for each
participant (i.e., they were ipsative), we conducted analyses using only
the proportions of individual and the proportions of collaborative strategies as dependent measures. Further, because individuals self-selected
their own appraisal classifications for each life task, we conducted
separate analyses for each appraisal category, including only the subset
of participants endorsing a specific appraisal category. Where appropriate, we averaged across multiple life tasks with that appraisal category
to produce an average proportion of individual and collaborative strategies in that appraisal category for each participant. Because individuals
may have endorsed multiple appraisal categories, the numbers of participants in each appraisal category-specific analysis sum to more than the
376
Meegan & Berg
total N. In these analyses, we were able to identify significant differences
between the proportion of individual and collaborative strategies within
each appraisal category.
As depicted in Figure 2, for participants appraising life tasks as
individual in nature (n = 39), a significantly greater proportion of individual strategies were reported than were collaborative strategies, dependent t (38) = 8.10, p < .001. For participants appraising life tasks as
indirectly shared tasks (n = 79), a significantly greater proportion of
individual strategies were reported than were collaborative strategies,
dependent t (78) = 3.04, p < .01. For participants appraising life tasks as
directly shared tasks (n = 69), a significantly greater proportion of
collaborative strategies were reported than were individual strategies,
dependent t (68) = –2.34, p < .05. Within-subject analyses conducted on
the subset of participants who appraised life tasks with all three appraisal
categories revealed a similar pattern of effects.5
Thus, the strategies participants reported for pursuing their life tasks
also frequently included others in substantial ways. In addition, variability in strategy use was related to how individuals appraised their life tasks,
because collaborative strategies were used most frequently when life
tasks were appraised as directly shared with others.
Content Analysis of Supportive and
Collaborative Strategies
Because the majority of life task pursuit strategies involved others in
some way and were unexamined as such in the literature, we explored in
a preliminary and descriptive way how others were involved in life task
pursuit strategies. In this section, we present a content analysis of the
strategies students coded into the categories representing supportive
(accommodated, gave advice, provided support) and collaborative (divided labor, negotiated, joint problem solving) involvement of others. We
5. To address whether individual and collaborative strategies varied by appraisal within
individuals, we conducted a repeated-measures ANOVA with two within-subject factors
(appraisal category and strategy classification) for the subset of participants who appraised life tasks with all three appraisal categories (n = 27). The appraisal by strategy
interaction term was significant, F (2, 52) = 13.97, p < .001, indicating that individual
and collaborative strategies varied by appraisal within this subset of individuals. The
pattern of mean proportions of individual and collaborative strategies was similar to that
in the set of “appraisal-specific” analyses depicted in Figure 2.
Social Life Task Appraisals
377
Figure 2
Mean proportions of individual and collaborative
strategies within life tasks appraised as individual,
indirectly shared, and directly shared.
used the idiographic content of participants’ strategies and explored how
the domains of school and relationships might relate to those activities.
In Table 2 we present the content categories of strategies and the
relative proportions of those categories overall as well as the proportions
separately by supportive and collaborative categories (students’ coding
of strategies). First, note the broad array of life task pursuit activities that
were coded by the participants into the categories representing supportive
and collaborative strategies. These strategies were more diverse than the
exemplars that we gave participants and ranged from activities where
others were clearly integral and salient (e.g., hanging out with friends,
discussions) to activities where others were not explicitly mentioned
(e.g., purchasing items, rearranging schedules) to activities typically
considered the province of an individual (e.g., adjusting attitude, looking
after psychological well-being). Such diversity in the salience of others
378
Meegan & Berg
Table 2
Relative Percentages of Strategy Content Categories
Category
Overall Supportive Collaborative
1. Doing specific activities without
mention of others
(Studying; Working; Purchased new
skis; Moved things into new house;
Sent announcements.)
2. Improving self
(Personal study; Becoming a better
person; Have a good attitude; Set
goals for myself.)
3. Establishing or ending relationships
(Pursue girls; Getting a divorce; Became
friends with neighbors; Started dating
on weekends.)
4. Seeking or receiving help
(Ask for help; Talked to my academic
advisor; Talked to a counselor;
Borrow money from dad.)
5. Contacting, talking, or sharing with
others
(Kept good communication with family;
Shared feelings about marriage;
Talked about marriage.)
6. Investigating, thinking, or deciding
among options
(Research job through web; Thought
about consequences of goal; Deciding
on a major.)
7. Planning, scheduling, or preparing for
activities
(Planned wedding; Making time for my
partner; Preparing for LSAT; Rearrange
schedule.)
8. Spending time with others
(Hung out with friends; Spend time with
family; Be with friends; Spend time
with boyfriend.)
38.8
45.9
22.8
8.8
11.9
2.0
7.3
5.1
8.3
7.2
7.6
6.3
6.7
3.7
13.4
6.4
6.2
6.7
6.2
4.4
10.2
4.8
3.9
6.7
Social Life Task Appraisals
379
Table 2
(Continued)
Category
9. Providing help
(Helped out when able; Took friend out
when she was down; Helped friends
and family in need.)
10. Engaging in groups
(Get involved in study groups; Joined
Greek fraternity; Involved myself
with leadership groups.)
11. Doing specific activities with others
(Eating dinner with family; Went to
party with some friends; Worked out
with friends.)
12. Miscellaneous
(I have a calling in church; Been more
frugal; I have a husband; Finances to
go to school.)
Overall Supportive Collaborative
4.6
2.8
8.7
3.7
3.2
4.7
3.1
2.5
4.3
3.5
2.6
5.9
is important because many of the strategies might not have been rated by
outside coders as indicative of supportive or collaborative strategies (e.g.,
studying).
Supporting our assertion that supportive strategies represent a lower
level of social involvement than collaborative strategies, the collaborative
strategies reported by our sample more clearly highlight direct and active
roles for others, whereas the supportive strategies frequently imply
others’ involvement. For example, specific activities where others were
not mentioned at all were more frequent in supportive (45.9%) as
opposed to collaborative (22.8%) strategies. Likewise, activities revolving around improving the self comprised nearly 12% of supportive
strategies, but only 2% of collaborative strategies. In contrast, contacting,
talking, or sharing with others represented more than 13% of the activities
where others were involved collaboratively, whereas those activities
comprised less than 4% of supportive involvement of others. Similarly,
activities revolving around planning and providing help were considered
collaborative at more than twice the rate of supportive activities. Thus,
the collaborative strategies reported by our sample more clearly highlight
380
Meegan & Berg
direct and active roles for others, whereas the supportive strategies
frequently imply others’ involvement.
A surprising aspect of the content of supportive and collaborative
strategies was the frequency of cognitive and intrapersonal activities.
Strategies such as thinking, planning, goal-setting, and changing attitudes
were often coded as involving others in supportive or collaborative ways.
The salience of others to such intrapersonal strategies suggests that others
may be evoked cognitively (e.g., thinking about what someone else
would say or think) as individuals think about their life tasks (e.g.,
Staudinger, 1996).
In sum, life task pursuit strategies that participants coded as involving
others varied from extremely intrapersonal strategies to clearly interpersonal strategies. In both supportive and collaborative strategies, individuals actively sought the involvement of others, rather than passively
allowing others to engage in the strategies. Finally, differences in content
between supportive and collaborative strategies provide support for our
distinction between supportive and collaborative classifications.
DISCUSSION
The results indicated that college students appraised the majority of their
life tasks as involving others either indirectly or directly, that individuals’
appraisals varied by domain, and that directly shared appraisals were
related to individuals’ reports of how others were involved in life task
pursuit strategies. Greater proportions of directly shared appraisals were
associated with higher ratings of interdependence but were not related to
gender or general interpersonal orientation.
Interdependence in Life Task
Appraisals and Strategies
Individuals’ appraisals of their life tasks generally included others in
substantial ways, as the minority of life tasks were appraised as “only
mine.” The prominence of others in life task appraisal suggests that the
goal structures individuals use to guide and give meaning to their everyday activities may not be solely individual in nature but may be shared
or social in nature. For some individuals, certain life tasks may operate
as relational road maps, providing structure, meaning, and objectives for
everyday problems and activities engaged in with relationship partners.
Social Life Task Appraisals
381
Individuals’ appraisals of their life tasks as directly shared with relationship partners may also serve a definitional function for relationship roles,
concretizing a relationship by highlighting specific domains in which
mutuality and coordination with a partner are expected. The inherent
interdependence of directly shared appraisals, however, does not seem to
reflect efforts at compensation, as directly shared appraisals were unrelated to perceptions of control and difficulty.
Indirectly shared appraisals, the most frequently reported appraisal
type, seemed to represent lower levels of social involvement in life tasks
than that in directly shared appraisals. Individual strategies were more
frequently reported than collaborative strategies in this appraisal category. The lower level of social involvement may reflect findings from
current research on emotional transmission that social networks are
affected by individual members’ stress, even though those network
members are not directly involved in the stressor or coping efforts (e.g.,
Almeida, Wethington, & Chandler, 1999; Larson & Almeida, 1999;
Thompson & Bolger, 1999). Similarly, Harlow and Cantor (1994) examined how individuals’ satisfaction with their social lives changed as a
result of academic concerns “spilling over” into the social domain.
Whether such changes in life satisfaction may be attributable to stresses
endured by the social network and the network’s resultant change in
support and interaction (see Compas & Wagner, 1991) is an interesting
question for future research.
The prominence of interdependence in our participants’ life task
appraisals may be due in part to the types of domains nominated by our
participants. In contrast to previous work, life tasks centering on establishing independence and beginning an independent life did not appear
frequently, potentially reducing the number of individual life task appraisals. Our participants were recruited primarily from a commuter
campus, whereas Cantor’s previous work (e.g., Cantor et al., 1987; Zirkel
& Cantor, 1990) involved students who were in college in a separate
physical location from their parents. The domains of life tasks nominated
by participants in this study, however, were similar in many other respects
to those reported by previous researchers (e.g., Cantor et al., 1987; Cross
& Markus, 1991; Emmons, 1991; Zirkel & Cantor, 1990). Interpersonal
relationships (among family, friends, and intimate partners) and academic concerns (ranging from local concerns such as exams to larger
plans such as graduate school) dominated participants’ life task lists. We
do not feel that the high level of interdependence in this sample is due to
382
Meegan & Berg
the majority religion (Mormon) involving over half our sample, as
analyses by religion did not reveal any significant effects.
The Social-Contextual Model of Everyday Problem Solving (Berg,
Meegan, & Deviney, 1998) posits that both contextual and individual
features are important for understanding life task appraisal processes
across the life span. The salience of contextual features was focal because
life tasks within the relationship domain were more frequently appraised
as directly shared. Context, however, is not synonymous with appraisal,
as domains of life tasks appraised as directly shared extended beyond
interpersonal relationships. For instance, our participants highlighted the
possibility that specific relationships may be intimately tied to life tasks
that appear quite individualistic at face value (e.g., appraising academic
life tasks as directly shared). Together, such findings caution researchers
away from using domain of a life task as the only indicator of how the
social context may manifest itself in individuals’ goal structures. It
appears to us that domain may be a less precise measure of the importance
of the social context of life tasks than is appraisal (see also Berg et al.,
1998; Strough et al., 1996).
Similar to life task appraisals, the majority of strategies that participants reported using to pursue their life tasks involved others in some
way. In addition, collaborative strategies in which others played direct,
active, and co-participatory roles accounted for more than 20% of activities in pursuit of life tasks. We differentiated between supportive and
collaborative strategies to highlight how individuals may view their
relationship partners as contributing jointly and sharing responsibility for
action (Rogoff, 1998; Staudinger, 1996) in ways that extend beyond
traditional conceptions of social support (Cutrona & Russell, 1990).
Specifically, within traditional conceptions of social support, one individual typically acts (or is perceived to be likely to act) in the interest of
another individual, whereas the types of collaborative strategies considered in the present study imply that social units may direct their joint
activities toward shared goals. Our content analysis reinforced the distinction between supportive and collaborative strategies as one of differential salience and involvement with others.
The relations between how a life task was appraised and the strategies
individuals reported for pursuing it suggest a fit between appraisals and
strategies that is in line with our model. The link between appraisals and
strategies has been reported in a variety of literatures, as life task (e.g.,
Cantor & Fleeson, 1994), stress and coping (e.g., Lazarus & Folkman,
Social Life Task Appraisals
383
1984), and everyday problem-solving researchers (e.g., Berg & Calderone, 1994; Berg et al., 1998; Blanchard-Fields et al., 1995) often use
individuals’ appraisals of stressors and problems (i.e., how they think
about them) to understand age, context, and individual variability in
strategy use (i.e., what they do to deal with them). Cantor and Kihlstrom
(1987) articulated their view that “the strategy involves the ways in which
the person interprets the ‘problem’ and plans a ‘solution’ to be consistent
with his or her prevalent goals in that ‘task’” (p. 175).
Although appraisals and strategies map onto each other in theoretically
predicted ways, appraisals and strategies are not conceptual or empirical
redundancies. In several instances, individual strategies were reported
for life tasks appraised as directly shared, as were collaborative strategies
for life tasks appraised as individual in nature. Individual strategies may
have been employed in the interests of expedience, contextual constraints
on interaction, or the unavailability of a partner. In addition, collaborative
strategies may be used as a way to initiate subsequent change in appraisals (e.g., collaborating so that someone comes to appraise a life task as
directly shared; see Berg, Meegan, & Deviney, 1998).
Content of Other Involvement in
Life Task Pursuit
Our content analysis of the activities that involved others in supportive
or collaborative ways revealed a broad range of activities directed at life
task pursuit. These activities ranged from individual cognitive decisions
and activities where others were not mentioned explicitly to high levels
of engagement where joint planning, problem-solving, and helping behaviors occurred. The content analysis suggests that the same life task
pursuit strategy may be construed by participants as reflective of different
levels of involvement of others. Our content analysis also suggests that
students’ own strategy classifications were critical to understanding the
extent to which the actual activities of life task pursuit may be accomplished in the context of specific relationships. For example, many
strategies did not mention others at all, yet these strategies were coded
by the students as a form of collaborative activity.
When others were not explicitly mentioned, the form of collaboration
may have involved some form of distal and mediated collaboration,
where an implied other was used to guide action and cognition (see
Rogoff, 1998; Staudinger, 1996). These types of descriptions may also
384
Meegan & Berg
reflect what Deci and Ryan (1987) call autonomy support, which “entails
acknowledgment of the other’s perceptions, acceptance of the other’s
feelings, and an absence of attempts to control the other’s experience and
behavior” (Ryan & Solky, 1996, p. 252). Thus, the absence of an explicit
mention of others may have occurred because others were not directly
involved in action. Future work will benefit from directed prompts for
participants to elaborate precisely how others were involved in life task
pursuit activities.
The diversity present in the content analysis of supportive and collaborative strategies suggests that involvement of others in life task pursuit
may not be predicted from a single personality characteristic, as was the
case for the measure of interpersonal orientation used in the present study.
For example, activities such as engaging in groups or spending time with
others may be related to scales measuring extraversion (Costa & McCrae,
1992), but self-improvement activities or helping others may be better
captured by measures of conscientiousness.
Limitations and Future Directions
Our findings regarding the social context of life task appraisal and pursuit
must be considered in light of several limitations and remaining questions. One concern is that the present study was conducted with individuals as the unit of analysis. The phenomenological experience of “sharing”
as perceived by individuals may not adequately represent the configuration of appraisals within a social unit. In an ongoing study with older
adult married couples, partners’ life task appraisals were generally congruent, and this congruence enhanced the frequency of collaborative
strategies (Meegan & Berg, 1998).
A second concern is that our methodology involved simultaneous
retrospective accounts of both the appraisals and the strategies students
employed to pursue their life tasks. The retrospective nature of our data
may have allowed for reconstructive processes in which participants
recounted strategies that were more in line with their life task appraisals
than would be the case otherwise. However, our other work (Berg &
Calderone, 1994; Strough & Berg, 2000) indicates that these links still
occur when reconstructive processes are not involved. In addition, the
correlational nature of the links between appraisals and strategies limits
our ability to assert that appraisals lead to strategy pursuit. Future work
would benefit from experience-sampling techniques (see Cantor et al.,
Social Life Task Appraisals
385
1987; Emmons, 1991; Larson & Almeida, 1999; Thompson & Bolger,
1999) to capture the temporal and causal aspects of these links.
Our assertion that life tasks may be appraised and pursued within
social units comes with a number of theoretical and methodological
implications. First, greater consideration needs to be given to the role of
others in life task appraisal and pursuit. Apart from highlighting the
prevalence of relationship-focused domains of life tasks, previous research has accorded relationship partners relatively peripheral roles (e.g.,
Cantor et al., 1992; Cantor & Malley, 1991; Emmons, 1986, 1989;
Harlow & Cantor, 1994, 1995). The present study suggests a more central
part for others in both appraisal and pursuit of life tasks. Second, the unit
of analysis for understanding the ways life tasks organize and guide
behavior may need to change from the individual to the social unit.
Further, we feel it is imperative to address questions regarding with whom
life tasks are shared (e.g., intimate partners, close friends, family) and
whether those individuals hold the same life tasks and appraise them
similarly. Third, in addition to notions of individual physical and psychological well-being, it will become important to address issues of relational well-being and their reciprocal relations with life task appraisal
and pursuit. Relational well-being may be enhanced by success at shared
goals, thus increasing the emotional payoff commonly reported in studies
of life task progress and success (e.g., Little, 1998).
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Our findings suggest that the goal structures individuals use to organize,
guide, and give meaning to their everyday activities are often social in
nature. When individuals consider their personal life tasks, they readily
recognize that others are often impacted by their pursuit of those tasks
and, indeed, often part and parcel to the life task. In addition, they report
that others play direct and active roles in many of the strategies for
pursuing life tasks that they appraised as interdependent. Thus, along
with researchers investigating cultural and gender differences in selfconcept (e.g., Bacon et al., 1998; Markus & Kitayama, 1991), we feel
that self-definitions that include other individuals are important sources
of motivation and problem-solving strategies (see also Harlow & Cantor,
1994, 1995). A greater understanding of how motivational and definitional features of the self, such as life tasks, are co-constructed and
386
Meegan & Berg
appraised within the context of important relationships will contribute to
a growing literature on how aspects of the self guide everyday adaptation.
REFERENCES
Aldwin, C. M., Sutton, K. J., Chiara, G., & Sprio, A. (1996). Age differences in stress,
coping, and appraisal: Findings from the Normative Aging Study. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 51, 179–188.
Almeida, D. M., Wethington, E., & Chandler, A. L. (1999). Daily transmission between
marital and parent-child tensions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 49–61.
Bacon, P. L., Edwards, J., Gawehn, E., Southwell, K., Wright, L., & Cross, S. E. (1998,
August). Measuring the interdependent self-construal. Poster presented at the annual
meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA.
Berg, C. A., & Calderone, K. S. (1994). The role of problem interpretations in understanding the development of everyday problem solving. In R. J. Sternberg & R. K.
Wagner (Eds.), Mind in context (pp. 105–132). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Berg, C. A., Meegan, S. P., & Deviney, F. P. (1998). A social-contextual model of coping
with everyday problems across the life span. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 22, 239–261.
Berg, C. A., Strough, J., Calderone, K. S., Sansone, C., & Weir, C. (1998). The role of
problem definitions in understanding age and context effects on strategies for solving
everyday problems. Psychology and Aging, 13, 29–44.
Blanchard-Fields, F., Janke, H. C., & Camp, C. J. (1995). Age differences in problemsolving style: The role of emotional salience. Psychology and Aging, 10, 173–180.
Cantor, N. (1990). From thought to behavior: “Having” and “doing” in the study of
personality and cognition. American Psychologist, 45, 735–750.
Cantor, N., Acker, M., & Cook-Flanagan, C. (1992). Conflict and preoccupation in the
intimacy life task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 644–655.
Cantor, N., & Fleeson, W. (1994). Social intelligence and intelligent goal pursuit: A
cognitive slice of motivation. In W. Spaulding (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: Vol. 41. Integrative views of motivation, cognition, and emotion (pp. 125–179).
Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska.
Cantor, N., & Kihlstrom, J. F. (1987). Personality and social intelligence. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Cantor, N., & Malley, J. (1991). Life tasks, personal needs, and close relationships. In
G. J. O. Fletcher & F. D. Fincham (Eds.), Cognition in close relationships (pp.
101–125). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cantor, N., Norem, J. K., Niedenthal, P. M., Langston, C. A., & Brower, A. M. (1987).
Life tasks, self-concept ideals, and cognitive strategies in a life transition. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1178–1191.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient for agreement for nominal scales. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.
Social Life Task Appraisals
387
Compas, B. E., & Wagner, B. M. (1991). Psychological stress during adolescence:
Intrapersonal and interpersonal processes. In M. E. Colton & D. Gore (Eds.), Adolescent stress: Causes and consequences (pp. 67–85). New York: Gruyter.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R)
and NEO five factor inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Coyne, J. C., & Delongis, A. (1986). Going beyond social support: The role of social
relationships in adaptation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54,
454–460.
Coyne, J. C., Ellard, J. H., & Smith, D. A. F. (1990) Social support, interdependence, and
the dilemmas of helping. In B. R. Sarason, I. G. Sarason, & G. P. Pierce (Eds.), Social
support: An interactional view (pp. 129–149). New York: Wiley.
Cross, S., & Markus, H. (1991). Possible selves across the life span. Human Development, 34, 230–255.
Cutrona, C. E., & Russell, D. W. (1990). Type of social support and specific stress: Toward
a theory of optimal matching. In B. R. Sarason, I. G. Sarason, & G. Pierce (Eds.),
Social support: An interactional view (pp. 319–366). New York: Wiley.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1024–1037.
Emmons, R. A. (1986). Personal strivings: An approach to personality and subjective
well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1058–1068.
Emmons, R. A. (1989). The personal striving approach to personality. In L. A. Pervin
(Ed.), Goal concepts in personality and social psychology (pp. 87–126). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Emmons, R. A. (1991). Personal strivings, daily life events, and psychological and
physical well-being. Journal of Personality, 59, 453–472.
Emmons, R. A. (1992). Abstract versus concrete goals: Personal striving level, physical
illness, and psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
62, 292–300.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Gottlieb, B. H., & Wagner, F. (1991). Stress and support processes in close relationships.
In J. Eckenrode (Ed.), The social context of coping (pp. 165–188). New York: Plenum.
Harlow, R. E., & Cantor, N. (1994). Social pursuit of academics: Side effects and spillover
of strategic reassurance seeking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66,
386–397.
Harlow, R. E., & Cantor, N. (1995). To whom do people turn when things go poorly?
Task orientation and functional social contacts. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 69, 329–340.
Heckhausen, J., & Shulz, R. (1995). A life span theory of control. Psychological Review,
102, 284–304.
Klinger, E. (1975). Consequences of commitment to and disengagement from incentives.
Psychological Review, 82, 1–25.
388
Meegan & Berg
Larson, R. W., & Almeida, D. M. (1999). Emotional transmission in the daily lives of
families: A new paradigm for studying family process. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 61, 5–20.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
Little, B. (1983). Personal projects: A rationale and methods for investigation. Environment and Behavior, 15, 273–309.
Little, B. R. (1998). Personal project pursuit: Dimensions and dynamics of personal
meaning. In P. T. P. Wong & P. S. Fry (Eds.), The human quest for meaning: A
handbook of psychological research and clinical applications (pp. 193–212).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition,
emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.
Meegan, S. P., & Berg, C. A. (1998, November). Interdependent appraisals and collaborative pursuit of life tasks among middle-aged and older adult married couples. Paper
presented at Gerontological Society of America, San Francisco.
Morgan, C., & Sansone, C. (1995). Achievement and interpersonal concerns in everyday
problems: Gender differences and similarities. Unpublished manuscript, University
of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Norem, J. K., & Cantor, N. (1986). Defensive pessimism: “Harnessing” anxiety as
motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1208–1217.
Palys, T. S., & Little, B. R. (1983). Perceived life satisfaction and the organization of
personal project systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44,
1221–1230.
Pierce, G. R., Sarason, B. R., Sarason, I. G., Joseph, H. J., & Henderson, C. A. (1996).
Conceptualizing and assessing social support in the context of the family. In
G. R. Pierce, B. R. Sarason, & I. G. Sarason (Eds.), Handbook of social support and
the family (pp. 3–23). New York: Plenum.
Rogoff, B. (1998). Cognition as a collaborative process. In R. S. Siegler & D. Kuhn
(Eds.), Cognitive, language, and perceptual development: Vol. 2 (pp. 679–744). In
B. Damon (Gen. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology. New York: Wiley.
Ryan, R. M., & Solky, J. A. (1996). What is supportive about social support? On the
psychological needs for autonomy and relatedness. In G. R. Pierce, B. R. Sarason, &
I. G. Sarason (Eds.), Handbook of social support and the family (pp. 249–267). New
York: Plenum.
Staudinger, U. M. (1996). Wisdom and the social interactive foundation of the mind. In
P. B. Baltes & U. M. Staudinger (Eds.), Interactive minds: Life-span perspectives on
the social foundation of cognition (pp. 276–315). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Strough, J., & Berg, C. A. (2000). Goals as mediators of gender differences in highinvolvement dyadic conversations. Developmental Psychology, 36, 117–125.
Strough, J., Berg, C. A., & Sansone, C. (1996). Goals for solving everyday problems
across the life span: Age and gender differences in the salience of interpersonal
concerns. Developmental Psychology, 32, 1106–1115.
Swap, W. C., & Rubin, J. Z. (1983). Measurement of interpersonal orientation. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 208–219.
Social Life Task Appraisals
389
Thompson, A., & Bolger, N. (1999). Emotional transmission in couples under stress.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 38–48.
Wethington, E., & Kessler, R. C. (1991). Situations and processes of coping. In
J. Eckenrode (Ed.), The social context of coping (pp. 13–29). New York: Plenum.
Zirkel, S. (1992). Developing independence in a life transition: Investing the self in the
concerns of the day. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 506–521.
Zirkel, S., & Cantor, N. (1990). Personal construal of life tasks: Those who struggle for
independence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 172–185.